Not to rekindle the fires; but what real value, if any, do Sankaran

[Richard Shannon]

Hello Kimberly,
It may at times be 'arguing" at others it is
actually useful public discourse.
The long and short answer to your query is, that
only time will tell if these ideas will pan out. It
makes one wonder if Scholten knows that there are
other rx's beyond the periodic table. What happens
when he comes across another kingdom in a client?
I have studied and used the Scholten/Sankaran
schools of thought for over 6 yrs. and sometimes the
schema plays out and sometimes it does not. If it is
to the benefit of the client I use it, and if not I
use something else.

Peace and prosperity, Rik
____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss an email again!
Yahoo! Toolbar alerts you the instant new Mail arrives.
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/

[Piet Guijt]

Hello Rik,
Scholten prescribes remedies from all kingdom, if and when indicated.
He is also an expert on small remedies and plant remedies.
Scholtens system regarding the periodic system is in use form more then 10 years by many homeopaths. So we can safely say that this contribution to Homeopathy will last.
Kind regards, Piet

[Richard Nash- Shannon]

Hello Piet,
I am aware that Scolten prescribes other rx's. And have seen him prescribe more than a
dozen other rx's. w/o benefit to a single patient. For me 10yrs. is not enough for a "new"
system in flux. Not to mention the amount of speculative prescribing he does and
advocates pertaining to un proven rx's. It should be our primary response to seek out the
truth in Homeopathic research first and foremost. One single prescriber/practitioner in the
whole world of Homeopathy w/one case regarding an unproven rx. is not enough to safely
prescribe on. I can think of no other science that has ever so blindly taken so much
unproven information and called it fact. That is also not to say that I do not use his work
as a pillar for my own. We should be constantly questioning/analyzing each others work.
This would be progress.

Peace and prosperity, Rik
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, "Piet Guijt" wrote:

[Piet Guijt]

Rik,
Even after a proving we can't take all the produced symptoms as belonging to the proven remedy.
We have to confirm it in practice. Most valuable symptoms of our materia medica come from experience, and not from the provings.
A proving is a good starting point, but not the end to come to a usefull a reliable picture.
Even the knowledge of the well known remedies with or without an initial proving are still growing with experience.
When is a picture ready?
Scholten method offers a good starting point and the pictures are also to be refined.
But his method of predicting picture is proven to be correct in these ten years, but the pictures are not final, but he instantly offers more possible remedies, which would take us ages to prove.
There is no objection to confirm his pictures by proving them, but in the mean time his pictures are that good so we can help patients, we ohterwise could not cure.
The problem of good research has been there from the start of Homeopathy, even much of the remedies Hahnemann used didn't have a good proving.
After all Homeopathy is build on experience, which is not black or white and includes human errors.
Kind regards, Piet

[muthu kumar]

Fire not rekindled--- this is a volcano
Not necessarily. Proving a symptom in clinic comes after its presence
in the provings. Times when it goes the other way about, where proving
is done after its clinical use - is where the remedies have been use
in traditonal medical systems, folklore etc. These exceptions should
not make up the rule. This same rule should not be applied where
synthetic remedies are concerned.

usefull a

Proving should not be a good starting point, proving is the *main*
starting point. Other ways of using the remedies or introducing them
should be based on some use in herbalism, toxicological pictures etc.
not based on arm-chair analysis of elements. Are there any serious
efforts afoot to compound the arm-chair materia medica with an
analysis of symptoms caused and cured in the patient???
Agreed- that does not mean we are using them without a solid
foundation- this is like saying - in countries where child labor is
not allowed - even a 40 year old is a child to his /her father, why
are you allowing them to work- just because we still come across new
symptoms of Silica - does not mean they are not well known...
When you have the nuances and peculiar symptoms, the intimate shades
of the symptoms (modalities etc.) are ready. Complete picture is only
an ideal for the mere reason that provings cannot be pushed to the
extent of creating full fledged physical pathological changes. So we
are always working with some blind spots...
Surgically removing a tumor takes about 2 hours, curing it might take
1 year - what would you prefer?

If hahnemann without such a mass participation can prove and document
so many remedies - "these ages to prove" argument sounds not so
convincing.. Give me one well proven medicine to a dozen half baked
ones... this is not only spoiling the reliability of the materia
medica but also setting a dangerous lazy route for future generations
to take...

"he instantly offers more possible remedies" is not such a good thing-
every case we have is a lesson- whether we cure it or not - it is
still a lesson - what kinds of lessons will we learn when we get
instant replacements without bothering to find why it did not act...

Given the global reach of homeopathy, instant knowledge transfer, such
great online and other communication tools - if we cannot do decent
hahnemannian provings - shame on us as a profession... we deserve all
the brick bats we get...
Kudos to Joy- she is doing excellent work organizing provings to
whatever extent she can...

in the
ohterwise

I do not believe that there is a disease that will be cured only when
we use one of these unproven elements... THE Simillimum - that which
cures everything the patient carries- is only an occasional
occurrence.. generally in reality we give a medicine which is probably
similar but not THE simillimum- so this takes care of the condition to
some extent but changes the symptoms or modifies them in such a way
that the next remedy becomes exposed....so on and so forth till the
disease in its fullness is defeated... Just because one medicine did
not work does not mean get the next element in the periodic table,
find out what the crystal ball tells and give it...

Primarily if the INDICATED medicine did not act, it means WE did not
find the exact remedy...or even a near-enough remedy- retake the case-
do not say the existing materia medica is deficient...even if the
remedy is just a similar one it will act- and will pave the way for
the next one... we will go in a round about route to the cure but we
will still reach it...we need not synthesize a whole new materia
medica in a test tube for this...
Homeopathy,
Like what - for example???

white and

Which is always the case- errors occur when things do not go
according to plan-but you do not take a known error and plan based on
that...

[Luise Kunkle]

Hi Sam,
This is just not so!!

I have posted this again and again, and never got any response at all
from no-one - Piets current post was the only one I have ever read
where someone also points it out.

Obviously neither you nor all the other posters have ever tried to
compare their favourite MM with the provings.

If you had, you would have found out and know that many of the
symptoms in the MMs cannot be found in the provings of that remedy.

cut

Very many symptoms Hahnemann contributed to the MM Pura and especially
to the MM of CD (in the latter perhaps most, perhaps all) do not
derive from "provings" in the sense we are using the word, but from
symptoms that were either cured by the remedy or appeared while
treating a patient!

Hughes already surmised that on theoretical grounds, and it has been
confirmed by the casebooks.

These are nothing but straight facts, which are always misrepresented.

I have no opinion on what they may mean to the discussion. I just
think that they should be known and acknowledged.

Regards

Luise
--
One thought to all who, free of doubt,
So definitely know what's true:
2 and 2 is 22 -
and 2 times 2 is 2:-)
==========> ICQ yinyang 96391801 <==========

[muthu kumar]

OK Thanks, I stand corrected- most of our symptoms are from the
clinic and very few from provings...and that certainly shows why
combos and arm-chair remedies work-

Law of signatures is the revolutionary method of finding remedies

Piet I am sorry-

Time to rethink our materia medica-

And as part of the discussion, I withdraw everything that I said
about Periodic table, Scholten et al and the need for proving
remedies before using them-

God- this whole thing is such a mess -
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, Luise Kunkle wrote:
our materia
presence
all
document
especially
from
been
misrepresented.

[Shannon Nelson]

You do like leaping from extreme to extreme--don't bite your tongue!
Shannon

[Shannon Nelson]

And several of our remedies in common use, with well-developed
prescribing pictures, have not yet had formal proving, just clinical
use.

[Luise Kunkle]

Hi Sam,

Since this is supposed to be an answer to my post, I think I should
point out for people who do not bother to read my post again, that I
said nothing of the sort you claim to be answering to!

It is, however typical of the kinds of responses I have got on my
statements of fact - and these kinds of responses to my posts ant
those of others are what causes the mess you claim to regretting so
much.

Regards

Luise
--
One thought to all who, free of doubt,
So definitely know what's true:
2 and 2 is 22 -
and 2 times 2 is 2:-)
==========> ICQ yinyang 96391801 <==========